Player Ratings missing on NCAA 14

[theharbinater]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mckinley Cash

There should be a hidden "ceiling" rating, a hidden "floor" rating, and a visible maturity rating, and a visible work ethic rating; which has an effect on whether or not the player's rating is closer to the floor or ceiling.

kinda like this idea.

to go along with it, how about a coach "motivation" speech, similar to the "persuasion" pitch in recruiting. you use it on someone who has decent ratings, but low work ethic and/or maturity, to maybe boost those ratings so they can reach the high ceiling they likely have.

[SpergLordStuntn]

Quote: Originally Posted by TryHard_Nation

As I've stated before, potential should not be a a numerical value but rather a percentage that a player will hit a current rating. This will make every dynasty unique and more dynamic. For example, Current potential: Player A is 60 overall. B potential, always reaches rating in 80s. New model: Player A is 60 overall, potentials are as follows: 90-99: 20% 80-89: 30 % 70-79: 5% 60-69: 45% This would be an example of a guy who is either gonna succeed or his tools are gonna fail him and he will not be great. Obviously it would be broken down more and preferably player development would depend on factors such as this, % of snaps played, coaches development rating, and practice reps. Also, there is always the problem of assigning default players potential ratings.

well put man, i was always hopeful of this very same idea

[timmg]

Quote: Originally Posted by Swamp Swagger

Ya they are missing alot of ratings but half the ones we have now mean nothing or do very little

You are so right!!

[BrockOchoGOAT]

The ratings do matter. Some matter more than others, but the ratings have an affect on how well each player performes at each specific task. If you think they do not matter at all than I do not respect your opinion and this thread is not the right place for you to try and trash the game. Getting back on topic, I have always wanted their to be a seperate kicking power for field goal kicking and punting. As it is currently set up, it is almost always better to put your punter at kicker if they have more kicking power, even though it is not a realistic representation of what kind of kicking power the punter has.

[Colorado Cooler]

My biggest issue with ratings is we are recruiting robots! Ask any recruiter what matters and they'll tell you, skills are key but they look hard at: APTITUDE (ability to learn and apply new concepts); INSTINCTS (feel for the game); and CHARACTER (citizenship and the propensity to do the right thing). This is an easy fix for EA: put GPA/SAT or ACT in the recruit profile along with a high - medium - low rating for instincts and character. Tie them in to training by allowing players on the higher end to advance more in areas like awareness and play recognition. Recruits with aptitude issues may DNQ and certainly wouldn't qualify for top academic schools. Rating these human factors would put recruiting in a whole different light.

[BrockOchoGOAT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Colorado Cooler

My biggest issue with ratings is we are recruiting robots! Ask any recruiter what matters and they'll tell you, skills are key but they look hard at: APTITUDE (ability to learn and apply new concepts); INSTINCTS (feel for the game); and CHARACTER (citizenship and the propensity to do the right thing). This is an easy fix for EA: put GPA/SAT or ACT in the recruit profile along with a high - medium - low rating for instincts and character. Tie them in to training by allowing players on the higher end to advance more in areas like awareness and play recognition. Recruits with aptitude issues may DNQ and certainly wouldn't qualify for top academic schools. Rating these human factors would put recruiting in a whole different light.

I agree with what you are trying to say here. However, as somebody mentioned earlier, I do not think the NCAA will allow them to do so. Anything that paints any student athlete as a problem, stupid, and not having a very good work ethic is off limit for EA to use in the game. I do think these things would add a realistic feature though.

[T-Moar]

Quote: Originally Posted by Colorado Cooler

My biggest issue with ratings is we are recruiting robots! Ask any recruiter what matters and they'll tell you, skills are key but they look hard at: APTITUDE (ability to learn and apply new concepts); INSTINCTS (feel for the game); and CHARACTER (citizenship and the propensity to do the right thing). This is an easy fix for EA: put GPA/SAT or ACT in the recruit profile along with a high - medium - low rating for instincts and character. Tie them in to training by allowing players on the higher end to advance more in areas like awareness and play recognition. Recruits with aptitude issues may DNQ and certainly wouldn't qualify for top academic schools. Rating these human factors would put recruiting in a whole different light.

I think they should go farther than that. I think players should have stats from their junior year, too, and their senior year stats should be added as the season progresses. That way you can see if a player seems to be regressing, or if a player's making a great leap in their last year on campus. This should also be the primary factor in star ratings - it should have nothing to do with the player's actual in-game ratings.

Also, I think we need the GPA/SAT/ACT factor because that would be able to give us a way to actually affect academic prestige. If you recruit a bunch of smart kids, your school should look better academically. If you recruit a bunch of blockheads, that should also be reflected.

[BrockOchoGOAT]

Quote: Originally Posted by T-Moar

I think they should go farther than that. I think players should have stats from their junior year, too, and their senior year stats should be added as the season progresses. That way you can see if a player seems to be regressing, or if a player's making a great leap in their last year on campus. This should also be the primary factor in star ratings - it should have nothing to do with the player's actual in-game ratings. Also, I think we need the GPA/SAT/ACT factor because that would be able to give us a way to actually affect academic prestige. If you recruit a bunch of smart kids, your school should look better academically. If you recruit a bunch of blockheads, that should also be reflected.

I like the spirit of what you're saying, but that is not how it really works. The football programs at colleges do not affect the academic prestige at all. The academic standards are set, and it actually limits the players that a good academic college can recruit because they cannot recruit the dumb ones. SOme schools can't even recruit the average intelligence ones.